packages in pipe report #680
Conversation
glehmann
commented
Feb 28, 2025
•
glehmann
commented
|
Looks like a good candidate for a sync review. |
You can't get the koji build ID and links to the web interface from repos directly. |
scripts/pkg_in_pipe.py
Outdated
| koji_output = check_output(['koji', 'buildinfo', build[0]]).decode('utf8') | ||
| kv_lines = [line.split(': ') for line in koji_output.splitlines()] | ||
| build_info = dict(kv for kv in kv_lines if len(kv) == 2) | ||
| print(build_info) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like debugging output, do we want to keep it?
scripts/pkg_in_pipe.py
Outdated
| tags = [f'v{v}-{p}' for v in ['8.2', '8.3'] for p in ['incoming', 'ci', 'testing', 'candidates', 'lab']] | ||
| for tag in tags: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does not seem necessary to precompute a list of tags. This and the lack of specific details about what exactly gets parallelized makes reading the patch harder than necessary
glehmann
force-pushed
the
pkg-in-pipe
branch
2 times, most recently
from
55ae5cb to
6f29e52
Compare
scripts/pkg_in_pipe/README.md
Outdated
| # Run in docker | ||
|
|
||
| ```sh | ||
| docker build -f pkg_in_pipe . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| docker build -f pkg_in_pipe . | |
| docker buildx build . -t pkg_in_pipe |
docker buildx replaces docker build see the "Important" note here https://docs.docker.com/reference/cli/docker/build-legacy/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
docker build is an alias to docker buildx build and buildkit is the default build engine since docker 23, so I think we should be good with docker build :-)
unless we need to run an older version somewhere?
ref:
scripts/pkg_in_pipe/README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ```sh | ||
| docker build -f pkg_in_pipe . | ||
| docker run -v ~/.koji:/root/.koji:z -e PLANE_TOKEN=<plane token> -v /out/dir:/output:z pkg_in_pipe /output/index.html |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should document in README that a directory from the host should me mounted in the container, and that a positional argument is used to specify the output path and filename inside the container, shouldn't we?
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| report.html | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not needed anymore as the output is flexible, and the example in README.md is outside of the repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
while not strictly needed, I think it's still nice to have it for local development
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it is still the default output file.
glehmann
force-pushed
the
pkg-in-pipe
branch
2 times, most recently
from
336d713 to
f14946b
Compare
|
@nathanael-h I have also added the last generation time and generation interval in the report |
scripts/pkg_in_pipe/pkg_in_pipe.py
Outdated
| def print_footer(out): | ||
| now = datetime.now() | ||
| print(f''' | ||
| Last generated at {now}. Generated every 5 minutes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While the "last generated" is useful info, hardcoding the interval of an external cron job does not feel right.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do you think it should be a command line option?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could be a --generated-info="Generated every 5 minutes."? --cron-info="5 minutes"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nathanael-h as a consequence of this change, we'll have to add --generated-info "Generated every 5 minutes." on the command line when calling pkg_in_pipe.py
glehmann
force-pushed
the
pkg-in-pipe
branch
2 times, most recently
from
592e2e3 to
4b42ed2
Compare
Signed-off-by: Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehmann@vates.tech>
Signed-off-by: Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehmann@vates.tech>
